Ashcroft testifies on 'torture' memos

"It was not a hard decision for me."

That was the way former U.S. Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft today described his decision to back off controversial Justice Department legal opinions produced by then-Deputy Assistant Atty. Gen. John Yoo. The memoranda, written in 2002 and 2003, you may remember, spelled out the use of interrogation techniques that described torture as "extreme acts" that cause pain similar in intensity to that caused by death or organ failure.

The memos said, in effect, that anything short of that was OK. They have been among the most controversial documents to come to light in the Bush administration in its campaign against terrorism.

The former attorney general, who ran the Justice Department from 2001 to 2005, was the man who originally approved the memos.

But testifying before the House Judiciary Committee today, he said: “It became apparent in the further examination of those opinions, when made in another time frame, that there were matters of concerns that were brought to my opinion."

Democrats challenged Ashcroft, according to the Associated Press account of the hearing, with questions about the frequency of waterboarding -- and he said he did not think that the procedure, as the CIA then described it, was torture.

--James Gerstenzang

Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images

Comments

[abby0802]

John Ashcroft is typical of the Bush administration's lack of conscience, moral grounding, and malfeasance. It has lied, distorted, and in general acted in such a heinous fashion both Bush and Cheney should have been impeached some time ago.
Every American should be protesting loudly about this administration; however, Bush et al have successfully convinced enough people through fear that if they don't torture there will be another attack on the US.
However, many people who have interrogated people says that torture only brings false information.
Put that aside.
America is the best country in the world but loses its moral standing when it acts immorally. How can we claim to be the "leader" of the free world if our country acts illegally and immorally?
The most important point is that torture of any kind is IMMORAL. I guess that is something that Bush, Cheney, etc. do not understand and refuse to understand.

[Cooks Perspective]

First of all, being liberal does not indicate a lack of patriotism. I am way over the right merging one with the other. I certainly believe that we are dealing with primitive humans here. If you have watched the beheading of Americans in Iraq you will change your mind about how “enemy combatants” are treated. I am a liberal, who absolutely despises these people, if you could call them that. I also am a firm believer in our bill of rights. As long as we as a country, military actions inclusive, intend to take the high ground, best intentions and the actions thereof need to be consistent. This is indicative of what some people call “civilized warfare.” I absolutely agree that the other side will not, can not, and lacks conception of what civilized warfare truly indicates.

Our own country is strife with war in reference to United States soil. Militias fighting the British for independence changed the rules of warfare mid-field. Why stand at take a bullet when you can hide behind a tree and pick them off one at a time? An interesting thought process wouldn’t you agree? A notion not dissimilar to where we are now. Perhaps the rules of engagement need to be altered when combating an enemy that we don’t go chest to chest with in an open field. They are in our country, they are in every country.

The most liberal country on the face of the earth, the Netherlands, is up to its ears in Islamic immigrants, whom are using the governmental policies against the native populous, quite literally infiltrating and impressing their own socially repressive culture into Dutch society. In 2002, during the election campaign, Up and coming politician Pim Fortuyn was assassinated during the 2002 Dutch national election campaign for instance. His positions about immigrants, more specifically, Islam, which he referred to as "a backward culture," were to quite literally close the borders for Muslim immigrants. Theo Van Gogh, a political satirist was stabbed in the chest in broad daylight, the dagger pinning a note to his chest which indicated his death was revenge for his work on a film he produced, which depicted Islam in an unkind manner.

Even the docile Danish had their foreign embassy’s bombed after a cartoonist drew the “prophet” Mohammed with a lit bomb in his turban. What kind of behavior is this?

These people are infiltrating modern civilizations at every level. They absolutely must be stopped. Mr. Bush is quite the moron. If you believe otherwise that you are as obtuse as he. His policies, misguided as they are, are still focused in somewhat the correct direction. It is only a matter of time before they strike the US homeland again. Our war against “extremists” is absolutely justified. It is unfortunately focused in the wrong country and against the wrong people. Iran poses more of a threat to the United States that Iraq ever had. Afghanistan is slowly and steadily falling back into the Taliban’s hands. And here we are, approaching seven years since the trade center and pentagon attacks. Where is Bin Ladden? Bill Clinton at least made some effort to capture this man. Our military is actually in Afghanistan, yet this man is still elusive?

Here are my liberal suggestions to fix the problem. Cut ties to Israel. Cut ties to most if not all of the Middle East. Produce our own energy, whether it be drilling here, solar, bio fuel, what have you. Simply stop immigration and secure the borders with a beefed up National Guard. The United States is full! Stop exporting jobs overseas. Stop buying goods from China. Be the benchmark in matters of human rights.

Bush was right about one thing and one thing only, this is a crusade.

[Jim]

Yes Dusty, You have effectively been terrorized into quickly giving up all that America used to stand for- those values that American soldiers fought and died for in those awful wars. You shame our country by so easily giving up our values in the wake of one major terrorist attack. You are so scared of a suicide bomber that you are willing to let our country abuse those it captures, even before a trial is held. That certainly is a long way from what the forefathers hoped for us. Not surprising really, governments naturally tend toward tyranny I think, and our ability to hold our government in check lasted a surprisingly long time. That is, before those in power figured out how to game the system. I just hope that we are truly the home of the brave, because those values that make America special are really going to require continued fighting and bravery without resorting to "going to the dark side."

[vexwine]

Waterboarding Okay?

Well, great, I guess that's what we're fighting for. Feh!

I can't believe we actually have political scum happy to admit it in public!

[Dusty]

Let me be clear, I'm not a Bush apologist and I'm not necessarily condoning the interrogation techniques that have been used though I have a hard time putting sleep deprivation and waterboarding in the same category as what I would consider torture such as electrocution, cutting off digits, irons and pincers, and so forth. I guess I just don't see scaring the hell out of someone as being the same thing but that's not to say I think it should be done to any prisoner who could potentially hold useful information at the sole discretion of the president and/or his staff members. At the same time, I strongly disagree with treating terrorists like civilians or even like members of an opposing army. These are people who were caught trying their best to kill innocent civilians in large numbers whether it be our own, Iraqi citizens, or any other non-military folk unfortunate enough to be in the way. I don't see why it's not ok to scare the heck out of them or make their life extremely uncomfortable in an attempt to gain information that might protect our soldiers and our citizens from further attacks when it IS ok to shoot them in the face, toss a grenade at them, or drop a bomb on them so long as they happen to be actively trying to kill us at the moment. Just because we captured them instead of killing them doesn't make their intentions any different. Does that mean there shouldn't be oversight? There absolutely has to be oversight for exactly the reasons you bring up Jim, and I don't think the military or the administration should be able to legally do whatever they please whenever they please, but my main contention here is that we're not putting people on the rack. We're not gassing them to death. I take offense to being compared to Nazis and told that I should be ashamed of my country. If anything I'm ashamed that we don't have the backbone to do what it takes to protect our citizens because it might violate the human rights of someone who would target civilians en masse. As far as I'm concerned they have no human rights. I absolutely agree that there should be a legal process to ensure innocents or even "normal" enemy combatants aren't caught up in the process, but once this is established I have no problem putting the fear of God into the heart of a terrorist.

[BPB]

The USA might be the leader of the free world in its up to now relentless pursuit of a thousand and one ways to make more and more money, disregard for divine injunctions against usury, and the like. However, its 'the end justifies the means' ethics, which in recent years has increasingly defined official behaviour, render its self-delusional boast of being the world's leading example of universally applied human rights and Judeo-Christian values both laughable and tragic.

[Fireman]

In my opinion i feel that the use of torture, truth serum, etc. is justified in the sense that if you could prevent a terrorist attack, and the only way to do it is to torture, waterboard, beat, and use truth serum wouldn't you do that. We had a laptop that was taken from an alleged terrorist, and it had the plans for 9-11. If you were given the option to have 9-11 happen, or torture the guy until he told what was on there, and prevent one of the worst killings in the US, and save all 343 firefighters, and all those people in the towers and planes, wouldn't you have done it. Think about it. Its not that hard of question to anwser if you (really) have pride in your country.